Talk:Soviet Union/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Dissolution date

8 December 1991 is when the Belavezha Accords were signed; 26 is when Gorbachev resigned. The latter date seems to be cited more often as the formal end of the USSR. Discuss? --illythr (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right, found the dissolution document. 26 it is. --illythr (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kazakh flag replace in infobox

The infobox on this article shows the Soviet Union 'succeeded by' many states, along with Kazakhstan. However the small flag icon next to it is the flag of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, not the newly independent Republic of Kazakhstan. Can somebody change the flag icon? 212.96.64.129 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The flags in the infobox are actually supposed to be the flags of the succeeding entities used at the time of the dissolution. Kazakhstan did not adopt the current flag until June 4, 1992 and was using the flag of the Kazakh SSR until then.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2012; 15:12 (UTC)

Communist Russia Redirect

Should Communist Russia redirect to Soviet Union or Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I created this redirect years ago, but I have no strong opinion as of yet. I redirected it specifically to the Russian SSR, which at the time was called "Soviet Russia" or something similar. Conceivably more people may use the term "Communist Russia" to refer to the USSR as a whole.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

When people said "Communist Russia," they meant the USSR on the whole, as pars pro toto. Remember, before the USSR, "Russia," which was short for Czarist Russia, consisted of all would-be Soviet territories. The idea of the former Russia SFSR as "Russia" is only 21 years old. Even the Russians still consider the former Czarist and Soviet subdivisions to be "Russian."Atrix20 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

However, the expression was already used, with respect to the RSFSR, before the formation of the USSR in 1922: https://www.google.com/search?q="Communist Russia"&tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:1922&lr=lang_en I think that the disambiguation-style format that exists for Communist Russia now is perfect. -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Whence the mere 20% of higher (university-level) education? It was close to 50% in 1985-87

Whence the low 20% figure of "all applicants [for higher education] accepted"? After the 8th grade, half of our class was sent to vocational training schools. The remaining 31 students went onto grades 9-11 (equivalent of US high school), and of those 31, all but one had moved on to higher education. That's mid-to-late eighties. Please substantiate, break down by year(s) or otherwise clarify.Ttk371 (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There'a an anthem an a national anthem.

What's the difference. why are there two. i think some clarification might be needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.131.84 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Demonym

The USSR was a country, why isn't there no demonym on its page? We all know they were called Soviets, so why isn't it written in the article? It is on other pages. 99.199.237.60 (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The demonym appears to there, but for some reason it is not showing up. I'll investigate further into this. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: It appears that there is a problem with "Template:Infobox former country"; it lacks a demonym parameter. I'll raise this issue there. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

POV statment

The article says: "With multiple nationalities living in the same territory, ethnic antagonisms developed over the years." This is flagerant POV. 1) It elegantly implies that multiethnic societies grow antagonisms. 2) Ethnic antagonism existed in much worse forms (wars, genocides etc.) before and after the Soviet Union so to deal with this state as a developer of antagonism is not fair. Seems to me that such phrese should only be put as an opinion of an Anglosaxon "expert". It is certainly not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.168.103 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Document proclaiming death of Soviet Union missing

Read more:

http://www.ctpost.com/news/world/article/Back-in-the-USSR-Key-Soviet-document-is-missing-4258437.php#ixzz2KGp41JZk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9854619/Document-proclaiming-death-of-Soviet-Union-missing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.242.76 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Acquisition of the Baltic states

I've undone Incnis Mrsi's edit, firstly the claim that the Baltics "seceded" is documented as Russian nationalist minority POV, see the source State Continuity And Nationality on Page 92 with regard to : "It appears that today Russia by holding the opposite opinion on the Baltic claims is isolated on this issue."[1] Secondly, the article does not describe in any detail what so ever how the Soviet Union came to acquire the Baltic states, so adding 321 bytes of additional sourced information to an article 128,808 in size is hardly undue. --Nug (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're suggesting that Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were never a part of the Soviet Union? They've been independant since 1918? The maps on this article, are wrong? GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you really that ignorant of the difference between secession and restoration? BTW, are you now stalking me? This is now the second article that you have never edited before but arrive shortly after I edit it. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I merely asked for a clarification. You don't have to be a jerk. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• The three SSRs seceded and their governments transferred their power to the governments of the NATO-recognized states. No error here. Adding that to the lead is seriously WP:UNDUE and is already now duly covered there by "...Soviet Union used the opportunity to acquire territories in Eastern Europe...". --illythr (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

  For the record, I added this when reverted Nug. Sorry if my edit caused some confusion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, right. Updated my post. --illythr (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the view that the Baltic states "seceded" from the USSR has been described in the sources as a Russian nationalist viewpoint held by the Russian government in isolation (the EU and other governments support the restorationist view). Therefore this secessionist viewpoint it is a minority viewpoint, and this article is presenting that minority viewpoint as the mainstream view. --Nug (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nug, don't force me to provide the quotes from Western reliable sources saying the Baltic states seceded from the USSR. You are perfectly aware of those sources (I quoted them many times), so this your comment is hardly an indication of your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you have not quoted any such source, so I invite you to post diffs of where you have here and now, this should be interesting. Given that the exit of the Baltic states did not conform with Soviet law on secession (unlike in the case of the 12 union republics), I don't know on what basis you can claim otherwise. --Nug (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, the USSR consisted of 15 SSRs. Three of these were created on the territories of the Baltic states, whose governments evacuated and were no longer in control (international (non-)recognition of these events is already mentioned in the infobox). It is these three SSRs that seceded, not the ones represented by the exiled gov'ts (whose sovereignty was thus restored). --illythr (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The most recent diff is this. I also quoted other sources in the past, and I did that during the discussions you were a participant of. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Illythr, there is no consensus that the Baltic states should be considered as continuously existing since 1918, so Nug is definitely acting against the community's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Illythr, Paul is misrepresenting the RFC, there was no consensus in regard to how birthplace of a BLP was to be represented in an infobox, not the general question of state continuity. There is certainly concensus in the scholarly literature on continuity, see the seminal source on this topic Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR[2]. However the issue being discussed here is "restoration" vs. "secession".

@Paul, your cite of one author writing during the period of the dissolution of Soviet Union of "secession movements" or "recognition of a right to secede" does not prove anything. Authors often loosely use the term, however, in stricto sensu secession is predicated on the fact that the country in question was legally apart of the bigger state to begin with, which in this case they were not. Whether a country has been "restored" or "seceded" is determined by how other states view and relate to that country. David Smith writes in the intro of his book The Baltic States and Their Region: New Europe Or Old?[3] on page 2:

"Interwar independence and western support for the doctrine of legal continuity throughout the Cold War enabled the Baltic states to escape the designation of "former Soviet republic" and thus enter the category of states eligible for EU and NATO membership"

Further Dirk Crols writes on page 192 in that same book:

"In line with their former position, the then European Community (EC) and its member states accepted the Baltic thesis of legal continuity. On 27 August 1991, EC foreign ministers held an extraordinary meeting in which they issued a declaration welcoming warmly the restoration (author's emphasis) of sovereignty and independence of the Baltic states which they had lost in 1940. Most of the western states resumed diplomatic relations with the Baltic states which they had considered to have been restrained during occupation."

This wasn't just some pie in the sky declaration but had real financial consequences, the original Baltic gold reserves, diplomatic property and other assets were returned to the Baltic states only because other countries considered them restored states, there would be no such obligation if the Baltic states were considered to have seceded. Nor did the Baltic states accept any share of the existing assets or debts of the Soviet Union as the 13 former soviet republics did. The other real impact of continuity of course are the citizenship policies, which have been largely accepted by other countries, as Dirk Crols writes on page 198:

"In spite of the above amendments, the basic premise of the Estonian citizenship policy - that of state continuity and the granting of automatic citizenship only to pre-1940 citizens and their descendants - has never been questioned by the EU. The critique has only related to specific categories or elements but never to the entirety of the Estonian legislation"

Just applying the simple WP:DUCK test: third countries declaring their support for the "Baltic thesis", assets and property returned, resumption of diplomatic relations, quick accession to the EU and NATO, and acceptance of citizenship policies, confirm that the Baltic states are seen by the majority of other countries as "restored states" rather than "seceded states". That is just the plain reality of it. --Nug (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nug, try to read (and understand a bit) what other people say to you. There were no émigré governments returned to Vilnius, Riga, and Tallinn, greeted by crowds which instantly overthrew Soviet institutions. There were SSRs who seceded, their legislatures elected via Soviet laws, and their governments staffed with Soviet citizens. I do not care about their relationship with pre-1940 states, about NATO’s (and whoever’s) attitudes towards these régimes, and it is propably not a thing interesting for readers of this article. From the Soviet point of view there were secessions, not anything else. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There were sovereign authorities vested outside of Baltic territory which were reinvested. Soviet citizens, irrelevant. Soviet laws, irrelevant. It is only from the POV viewpoint of the USSR there were Baltic SSRs which seceded. From the viewpoint of international law, those "seceded" SSRs were not sovereign until sovereign authority was reinvested, restoring continuous sovereign authority to control of the Baltic states. While the details are different, this process of preservation of sovereign authority and reinvesting in the territorial authority was followed for all three Baltic states. The notion of "secession by the Baltic SSRs" was a Soviet artifact, no more legal than their "joining", and not an artifact of sovereignty grounded in international law. Is there some reason you are arguing for discredited Russian propaganda here?

@Siebert, you know very well the RfC on continuity was utterly irrelevant as Wikipedia does not determine international law, which law is equally utterly clear with regard to the status of the Baltic states prior to Soviet occupation, during Soviet occupation, and after the demise of the Soviet Union. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The notion of "secession by the Baltic SSRs" was a Soviet artifact blah-blah-blah, which has to be demonstrated. The article is titled “Soviet Union”, and the information about its constituent parts rightfully represents Soviet artifacts, not Western ones. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And so, only the 12, not 15, qualify as successor states to the USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any opinion about this question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi, the existence of émigré governments is irrelevant, and in fact no reliable source makes that argument. "Secession" can only occur when either domestic constitutional laws (i.e. from the Soviet point of view) on secession are followed, as in the case of the 13 former Soviet republics, or, in terms of international law that the country was initially a legal constituent part. On both counts the Baltic states did not "secede", it did not follow Soviet domestic constitutional laws on secession (in fact the Soviet central government declared Baltic actions illegal under Soviet law) and in terms of international law the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union was never universally recognised as legal. Now I have presented two sources, one that states that most countries accept the "Baltic thesis" of continuity and thus view them as restored states rather than new seceded states, and the other which that Russia rejects the "Baltic thesis" and view the Baltic states as seceded states. That same source also states Russia "is isolated on this issue", i.e. the view that the Baltic states seceded is a minority view point held by the Russian government alone. This article is presenting this minority viewpoint as mainstream that is contrary to reality. --Nug (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I misinterpreted nothing. The question was:

" Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?"

and I do not see any indication that the dispute was limited only with biography articles. Regarding "secession", try to read this:

"For example, the three Baltic states ofthe Soviet Union -- Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia -- currently seek to leave the U.S.S.R. to establish independentstates. While many citizens ofthese republics desire freedom from Soviet domination, they do not intend to purchase it at the cost ofleaving their homelands. The central government in Moscow vigorously objects to their claims. Secession would do more than remove the citizens of these three states from Soviet control; it would remove one ofthe most economically productive areas ofthe Soviet Union and limit strategic access to the Baltic Sea.43 In practice, the local languages and cultures of the three Baltic states could not be protected through mass emigration. For these reasons, their goal is to secede."

And this:

"The most highly publicized secession movements have occurred in the Baltic states, and secessionist pressures have placed the future of the Soviet Union in serious doubt. Article 72-guaranteeing a right of secession-has been an important part of the debate. Until recently, however, it provided no firm basis for secession, in part because of the absence of a legal mechanism for its enforcement. Unilateral secession movements were said to violate Articles 73 and 74, which provide for the supremacy of Soviet law and for Soviet sovereignty. In April 1990, however, legislation was enacted to provide for secession through a two-thirds majority in a referendum and a five-year transition period."

The last quote is from The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, Approaching Democracy: A New Legal Order for Eastern Europe (Spring, 1991), pp. 633-670. Interestingly, I already presented this quote during one past discussion where Nug was actively involved, so I am slightly astonished why he pretends he is unaware of this source.

That is how the situation was seen in late 1980s.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the article currently says that "Western governments such as those of the EU and the USA view Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as continuous and unrelated to the respective Soviet republics." If that is the case, then why does Lithuania currently exists in its post 1940 borders, and why the Polish Vilno hadn't been returned to it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Really, more WP:SYNTHESIS? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(re: Yale et al.) No, Paul that was how the situation was described from the perspective of consequences for the U.S.S.R. Once and yet again it is your personal WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS making contentions regarding the Baltic states' status in international law based on examples which are irrelevant to international law. Your advocacy for discontinuity of the Baltic states, a position advocated for in discredited Russian propaganda, is unfortunate and unscholarly. I would note that prior positions of, and treaties signed by, Russia in earlier years were far more respectful of plain and simple facts in this matter than the current ex-KGB-led regime in power.

Regarding your mention of the Baltic states' continuity RfC, asking hockey fans about their personal opinion of international law was inappropriate. Moreover, I sincerely regret your using that forum of uninformed and mostly uncaring (with respect to history or the rule of law) editors to foment for your self-admitted "balance the nationalists" biased position in matters Soviet and post-Soviet.

Looking at this matter from the specific question of state succession and international law:

State Succession to International Responsibility, Patrick Dumberry, Brill, 2007, p. 151

The question whether the break-up of the U.S.S.R. should be regarded as a case of State dissolution or rather a series of secessions is also controversial. The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R. *

* Most States did not recognize the Soviet annexation. This is, for instance, the position of the United States: "Statement of Under Secretary of State, the Hon. Sumner Welles", in: The Department of State Bulletin, 21 July 1940, vol. III (no.57), p. 48; Restatement (Third), Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Vol. I. St. Paul, American Law Institute Publ., 1987, para. 202, "Reporters' Notes" no. 6. On this point, see; William J.H. HOUGH III, "The Annexation of the Baltic States and its Effect on the Development of Law Prohibiting Forcible Seizure of Territory", 6 N.Y. Sch. J. Int'l. & Comp. L., 1985, p. 391; Roman YAKEMTCHOUK, "Les Republiques Baltes en droit international" echec d'une annexion operee en violation du droit des gens", 37 A.F.D.I., 1991, p. 284. Lithuania first made a declaration of independence on 11 March 1990. It was soon followed by Estonia (on 30 March 1990, suspended until 20 August 1991) and Latvia (on 4 May 1990, suspended until 21 August 1991). The independence of the three States was recognised by the U.S.S.R. on 6 September 1991. On 17 September 1991, the three Baltic States were admitted to the United Nations (U.N. General Assembly Res. 46/4, 46/5 and 46/6, in: 31 I.L.M., 1992, p. 138). On this question, see: R. KHERAD, "La reconnaissance internationale des Etats baltes", 96 R.G.D.I.P., 1992, pp. 843-872; Jacques HUNTZINGER, "La reconnaissance des Etats baltes", in: L'Etat souverain a l'aube di XIIe siecle, S.F.D.I., Colloque de Nancy, Paris, Pedone, 1994, pp. 41-60. The three Baltic States are not considered by member States of the European Union as "new" States" Declaration of European Community Foreign Ministers, Brussels, 27 August 1991, in: 62 British Y.I.L., 1991, p. 558. This is also the position held in doctrine: Rein MULLERSON, "Law and Politics in Succession of States: International Law on Succession of States", in: Genevieve BURDEAU & Brigitte STERN (eds.), Dissolution, continuation et succession en Europe de l'Est. Paris, Cedin-Paris I, 1994, pp. 26-27; Michel BOTHE & Christian SCHMIDT, "Sur quelques questions de succession posees par la dissolution de l'URSS et celle de la Yougoslavie", 96 R.G.D.I.P, 1992, pp. 822-83; Martti KOSKENNIEMI & M. LETHO, "La succession d'Etats dans l'ex-URSS, en ce qui concerne particulierement les relations avec la Finlande", 38 A.F.D.I., 1992, p. 27.

I suggest bringing sources specifically dealing with state succession in international law (not Soviet law or circumstances) and specifically regarding the Baltic states if you wish to discuss this matter further. However, that the Baltic states are continuous and not new post-Soviet successor states is, as this source unequivocally indicates, not a matter of controversy and is enshrined in international law doctrine. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Notwithstanding the clear differences between the Baltic and Russian theses on state continuity, state practice seems to reveal that legal reasoning cannot be separated from political considerations. In fact, it can be argued that the states concerned are acting in conformity with their national interests. Two obvious examples can be mentioned in this regard. First, Lithuania did not insist on a return to the prewar border regime in border negotiations with Russia. This would deprive Lithuania of parts of the Klaipeda and Vilnius region. Although the Lithuanian position of proceeding from the current situation was in conformity with the Russian thesis of treating the Baltic republics as new rather than restored states, a number of Russian negotiators referred to the prewar situation.Second, in the field of treaty relations, the Baltic states considered third states to be bound by treaties concluded prior to 1940 but at the same time they wanted to benefit from some more advantageous treaties concluded with the Soviet Union.

These examples and the differences in citizenship policy between Estonia and LatviaontheonehandandLithuaniaontheotherdemonstratea certain flexibility in the application of the principle of state continuity.Astringent application implies a restitutio ad integrum. It is, however, very difficult to neglect legal norms and political facts that came into being during the years of occupation. A full and unrestricted restitutio ad integrum can therefore rightfully be described as a legal fiction. This does not imply, however, that the principle of state continuity is without any effect." (Leiden Journal of International Law, 16 (2003), pp. 377–388)

You should have to be aware of this source. Let me add to that, that your continuous and persistent attempts to accuse me of synthesis and original research (i.e. in violation of our policy) are disruptive. By merely quoting some single reliable source I am physically unable to do any synthesis. I respectfully request you to stop your accusations, and I inform you that that is my last request. Consider it as a formal warning. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You again confuse specific circumstances of transition from long-term occupation to restoration of independence with the convenience or interpretive aspects (i.e., "fiction") that other states do always have a choice in how to conduct their international relations, with the recognition, at this point, in international law (my source is several years newer than yours), that there is no controversy in the matter that the Baltic states are regarded as continuous and identical with their pre-war sovereign instances. Of course there can't be full restitution to pre-war circumstances, you're not going to get your family farm back if the Soviets built an apartment complex and the restored sovereign Baltic authority allows residents to claim their apartments as legal residence and property; in such cases you would expect to be offered some sort of compensation.

You're simply trucking out an old source already discussed elsewhere with your same old arguments (a) that unique aspects of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states make it less than occupation, "more of an intervention" and (b) here, that unique aspects of the re-institution of Baltic sovereignty on Baltic soil render that sovereign power to be discontinuous.

As for my alleging you regularly engage in WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, your recent participation at the aforementioned RfC speaks for itself. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

My participation in last RfC shows that I prefer to quote reliable sources, which speak for themselves. Such an activity can be neither synthesis nor original research. The discussion of my alleged engagement in SYNTH or OR is closed. Please, refrain from returning to that (unless you have solid evidences you are ready to present).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can certainly re-read my (you claim are) accusatory responses to you why your extensive regurgitation of generic "xyz part of the Soviet Union" quotations have nothing to do with sovereign authority (i.e., NOT the USSR), and that I expect you to be aware that it is sovereign authority, not occupying power, that we indicate on WP for country of birth. If you prefer, in the future I can dispense with the WP:ALPHABETSOUP and simply say you are simply wrong in the conclusions you claim based on your extensive quotations of sources—conclusions which you claim are direct representations of the quoted source when in fact those conclusions constitute your personal interpretation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Paul appears to have a tendency to interpret sources to fit his POV, which appears to be aligned with the Russian government viewpoint, which in turn sources have shown as being isolated, i.e. a minority viewpoint. --Nug (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

According to all the maps on this article, the Soviet Union was made up of 15 SSRs, including Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic & Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. Don't look much like a continuation of independance from 1918 of Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania, to me. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The maps, being maps of the USSR, represent how the USSR, from its perspective, administered territory over which it held legitimate sovereignty and which it occupied. No one denies that the Baltic SSRs existed as militarily occupied civilian-administrated entities—however, even within the USSR they had special status for discriminatory treatment. This and your post below indicate to me you have no desire to have a serious conversation on the topic. You're just being disruptive. VєсrumЬа ►TALK

No. As a rule, occupied territories are not presented on the map in the same way as the territory of the state proper. See, for example, the map of Israel or map of India. In contrast, there were no special signs on the map of the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the SSR maps were printed before the Baltic states were invaded and occupied, that proves your rule is just more WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS of utterly irrelevant POV pushing examples. Give it a rest. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I am talking about the maps printed after the WWII (the above map was printed in 1989). I see you again accused me in synthesis. Please, explain, which sources did I combine?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You contend that a map showing who controls a territory imparts sovereign rights. Really, this is completely identical to your recent arguings elsewhere that a source which uses the phrase "part of" makes a similar judgement on sovereign rights. Same tired and discredited argument just dressed in a different suit. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Proclamations on same footing as facts? footnote

Regarding:

Western governments such as those of the EU and the USA view Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as continuous and unrelated to the respective Soviet republics.
Russia views the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian SSRs as legal constituent republics of the USSR and predecessors of the modern Baltic states.

This representation is a mischaracterization of the situation because it posits continuous or not as some Cold War dispute of equal an opposite opinions when the facts are quite the opposite. What matters is not what politicians say, but what scholars say and what circumstances have been recognized in international law. Accordingly, this note should read:

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are internationally recognized as continuous with and identical to the pre-war states. Russia has acknowledged, by treaty, Soviet violation of Lithuanian sovereignty. In acceeding to the Council of Europe, Russia has also acknowledged its obligations and commitments to compensate individuals deported from the occupied Baltic states.

Quoting military or foreign ministry pronouncements to the contrary is interesting reading but doesn't represent what Russia has acknowledged when the RT cameras aren't rolling. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What scholars say is clear from the quotes provided by me in the previous section, so, please, stop that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you have shown what an individual scholar may say. On the other hand we have provided sources that summarises the viewpoints of many scholars say. --Nug (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@Siebert, it's clear how you would like us to interpret what you quote:

1. restoration to the prewar state is realistically impossible
2. sovereign continuity and "identical" with what came before is, in its strictest sense, restoration to the prewar state
3. as restoration in its strictest sense is realistically impossible, such restoration is (technically I would note) "fiction"
4. ERGO, state continuity of the Baltic states is a fiction = WP:SYNTHESIS (this isn't really what the source states)

Clearly, your argument breaks down at the last step since a later source confirms there is no controversy that the Baltic states are considered continuous and identical with their pre-war, pre-occupied, selves. And why is that? That it can be seen as a convenient fiction that the Baltic states are continuous is a red herring. International law recognizes that:

1. they were illegally occupied for the duration
2. that the USSR accordingly had no legal sovereignty for any part of the duration

There are no exigent circumstances under which the Baltic states should not be considered continuous, therefore they are continuous. Quite frankly, Russia has already signed treaties which include acknowledging Soviet occupation, regardless of public pronouncements that the Baltics joining the USSR was voluntary and legal. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Short version, you synthesize postulate that (territorial) restoration of sovereignty in practice and continuity of sovereignty in principle are the same thing when they are not. Complete restoration to identical pre-war state is not a prerequisite for sovereign continuity as an identical State. (Note lower and upper "S" for clarity). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Paul wants us to use obsolete sources written before the Baltic states even left the Soviet Union and ignore more contemporary sources that have access to the latest developments. This is in stark contrast to Paul's requirement that we use the most up to date sources with respect to Communist mass killings. Some observers may view that as rank hypocrisy. The book State Succession to International Responsibility by Patrick Dumberry published in 2007 summarises the current mainstream view on page 151:

"The question whether the break-up of the U.S.S.R. should be regarded as a case of State dissolution or rather a series of secessions is also controversial. The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R."

I think with that definitive summary we can conclude that the mainstream view is state restoration. If there are no further objections I will edit the article to reflect that. --Nug (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You may edit the article to reflect that (although it is a question of tertiary importance for the article about USSR), but you may not remove “secession”. “Reinvesting”, “restoration”, and similar, do not disprove the fact of secession of three SSRs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim "fact of secession of three SSRs"? The Baltic states did not follow Soviet constitutional laws on secession and in fact the Soviet central government declared Baltic actions illegal under Soviet secession laws, so from the Soviet point of view the Baltic states did not secede. --Nug (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Were their actions legal or not, but secession of these three (and several others, up to six in total) constituent entities was negotiated with the Soviet central authorities through 1991. The basis of negotiatons was namely their secession, not a transfer of Soviet terriories to foreign states. Whether these entities consider themselves as continuations of pre-1940 repubics is a matter of their own politics which is not relevant here, since they finally settled their relations with the Soviet Union in September 6. Do you accept that the Union authorities:

• recognized Baltic states in 1991 as a continuation of respective SSRs
• negotiated their secession
• admitted their secession

? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Short answer is no. Legal actions cannot emanate from illegal actions. Any recognition or negotiation you claim is null and void in international law as the USSR had no legal "negotiations" to conduct or "recognition" to grant regarding the legitimate sovereign Baltic authorities. There was no territory to "transfer" as the USSR had no legal title. Your position only holds water if the Baltic states were legitimate entities within the USSR, which they were not; moreover, you omit that starting point as the basis for your contentions.

Legitimate sovereign Baltic authorities were restored in keeping with formal processes in keeping with international law. You would do well to catch up on years of discussion of this topic elsewhere before making (I regret to say) half-baked (oops, occupied territory, nothing to legally negotiate, recognize, or transfer in the court of international law) contentions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Well, actually, the only legitimate action the USSR could have taken was to recognize its occupation of the Baltic states. Those negotiations were under way when the putsch cut them short. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter a legal title or not, just like it is irrelevant whether USSR was legal itself. The territory was effectively controlled by the Soviet Union: you may call it an occupation if you want. The only important point is that Baltic SSRs (does not matter legal or not) severed their link to the Union themselves, not were overthrown in any way. If legal actions cannot emanate from illegal Baltic SSRs, then why Baltic peoples now praise 1989–90 pro-independence declarations of their Soviet-elected legislatures? These are blatant double standards and hypocrisy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The fallacy in your argument is that those legislatures began to act as representatives of the people and invoked the illegality of the MR pact in order to reestablish independence, as opposed to being lackeys of the Central Soviet. The USSR disowned the Baltic authorities and ordered its military to kill freedom demonstrators (contrary to your contentions of successful negotiation for succession). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a plethora of confusion regarding today's Russia, which is what counts...

Shortly following the failed putsch, the Russian SFSR recognized Estonia and Latvia as independent states on August 24. 1991. Russia had already recognized Lithuania by the "Treaty on the Basics of Interstate Relations" which was signed and took effect on July 29, 1991. That treaty specifically mentioned and acknowledged the actions the USSR had taken against the rightful sovereignty of the Lithuanian state.

   So, for example, the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement in January, 2007: "Our position is well known and has been stated repeatedly. The assertions about Lithuania's 'occupation' by the Soviet Union and the related claims ignore all legal, historical and political realities, and are therefore utterly groundless." is a complete and hypocritical lie, as it

1. denies what Russia has already acknowledged in its treaty with Lithuania and
2. denies conditions it formally accepted regarding the formerly occupied Baltic states in its acceding to the Council of Europe.

   That the USSR "recognized" the Baltic states on September 6, 1991 is, from the standpoint of international law, irrelevant with respect to today's Russia as

1. it post-dated actions already taken by the RSFSR, the legal successor to the USSR and,
2. in and of itself, emanating from illegal Soviet occupation of territory, granted and recognized what was not the USSR's to grant or recognize. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal or illegal is irrelevant. If a few countries never recognized the existance of the USSR & more countries latter retroactively denied its existance, would that mean the USSR never existed? Honestly folks. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no "retroactive" in the Baltic states being occupied for the duration. There's no "retroactive" in the sovereign authorities of the Baltic states having taken specific, verified and valid, steps to preserve their authority in exile. The only thing "retroactive" is Russian propaganda denouncing vile nationalists rewriting history (i.e., "retroactive" history). International law doctrine regarding the Baltic states is clear, that there is no rewriting of history. On the other hand, both the Soviet Union and Russia's комиссия при президенте Российской Федерации по противодействию попыткам фальсификации истории в ущерб интересам России are now defunct, so I don't see the continued attraction of their blatantly pro-Soviet history-conjuring propaganda.

Your argument that legality of actions by one sovereign nation against another is irrelevant points to you being here only to promote the Putinesque construct of Baltic history. I regret that I can't see any other logical basis for these latest contentions of yours. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. @GoodDay, is there some purpose to your being here besides lobbying for a topic ban for POV pushing and stalking editors with whom you've had a recent spat? If I've mistaken your potential ignorance for POV pushing, it still doesn't change the biased and baseless nature of your contentions. Have a spot of calming tea. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi seems to be suggesting the re-admission of the Baltic States into the international community was secured by consent of the USSR, expressed in the form of recognition on 6 September 1991. It follows that the Baltic states were "released" from the Soviet Union in a manner similar to the 11 other ex-soviet republics, and that the annexation in 1940, although illegal, was not relevant for achieving independence in 1991. In other words, Incnis Mrsi is suggesting that Soviet recognition transformed "separation" into "secession".

In response, this thesis presented by Incnis Mrsi is factually incorrect since recognition by the USSR was not "negotiated" and in fact these independence declarations were declared null and void by the USSR, which insisted that the states should secede in conformity with Soviet law. However the Baltic states refused Soviet terms for separation and persisted with their declared restoration of independence without approval of Soviet authorities. As Vecrumba is correctly points out, the Soviet authorities had even sent in the military in an attempt to crush the Baltic states, and it was the recognition of the Baltic restoration of independence by the Russian Federation on August 24 that was crucial, which came two weeks before the Soviet Union at the verge of collapse finally acknowledged the inevitable.

Moreover, the USSR's declaration that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was null and void ab initio on Christmas day 1989 (after Germany's similar declaration in September 1989) actually created the legal and political basis for claiming a restoration of independence. --Nug (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, I updated my post from before (self-determination->MR pact illegality) to be more accurate. The Baltic states invoked the illegality of the MR pact to restore independence as opposed to invoking the principle of self-determination or seceding per article 72 of the Soviet constitution. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-determination is conceived as a permanent and continuous right and once exercised it does not need to be repeated, the Baltic peoples exercised it when they founded their states in 1918 after seceding from pre-revolutionary Russia. I think all objections have now been addressed so I will edit the article to reflect that fact that the Baltic states achieved independence through restoration rather than secession. --Nug (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Recommend you get a consensus for the changes you wish to make. The opposing editors have yet to continue their participation here & you're only going to cause an edit-war by forcing your changes upon them. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are being disruptive, you have not offered any relevant argument to the issue of restoration and secession. --Nug (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nug, this isn't an simple 'birthplace' argument. You're pushing for 'history change' edits on a country article & you better get a consensus for it. Besides myself, you've been reverted by others. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restored your changes (i.e reverted my 2nd revert), in order to avoid a potential edit-war. I'll leave it to others, to decide. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Using phrases like "history change" is sucking up to the Putin propaganda position which is a lie both in historical fact and in what Russia is a signatory to in international law. You might want to study up a bit more if you're serious about participating on the topic of the Baltic states viz. a viz. the USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

“actually created the legal and political basis for claiming a restoration of independence”?? Why homebrew historians think that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact had ever any legal consequences to the existence of Baltic states? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So now Dietrich Loeber, eminent legal scholar who stated that the Soviet declaration nullifying the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact created the legal and political basis for claiming a restoration of independence, is now a "homebrew historian". What a joke. I note that you have not provided a one single source to support your claims, rendering them without any weight. --Nug (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "it post-dated actions already taken by the RSFSR, the legal successor to the USSR and," I suggest Vecrumba to read history: by that moment the USSR still existed, so RSFSR was not a successor, but a part of the USSR. Regarding other nonsense, I simply see no need comment on all of that soapboxing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, focus on some detail but overlook the fact that reliables sources state no controversy exists with respect to restoration, i.e. it is a settled fact, as Patrick Dumberry summaries in his book State Succession to International Responsibility on page 151:

"The question whether the break-up of the U.S.S.R. should be regarded as a case of State dissolution or rather a series of secessions is also controversial. The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R."

Will Paul directly address this or disappear for a few days and then focus on some minor detail? --Nug (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already done that. Read van Elsuwege's quote: whereas there is not much controversy from a purely legalistic point of view, in reality each state acts mostly based on its own political interests. Thus, Lithuania prefer not to focus on its continuity too much, because that would mean the loss of Vilno and Klaipeda. Estonia and Latvia make a stress on state continuity in order to be able to refuse automatic citizenship to Russian immigrants (a fully political goal). All Baltic states insist that the treaties signed before 1940 should remain in force, but "at the same time they wanted to benefit from some more advantageous treaties concluded with the Soviet Union"

Let me also provide an extensive quote from one author cited by van Elsuwege.

"The Russian Federation effectively took the seat of the former Soviet Union in the UN and in other international organisations; in other words, it did not ask for admission to membership to these organisations as a new state.

Extra-legal factors within the international community of states acknowledged this fact. As for the acceptance of the right of membership of the Russian Federation - above all its permanent membership in the Security Council - the international community of states were evidently driven by political considerations connected with the continual maintenance of obligations concerning international security, disarmament, and the use of nuclear energy. However, the states which were born as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union are new subjects of international law; they are new states.

We must deal separately on the one hand with the judgement of the international legal status of Belarus and Ukraine, and on the other hand with that of the Baltic states. Belarus and Ukraine were formerly the republics of the Soviet Union. In the disintegration process of the Soviet Union their international legal status has undergone a peculiar evolution. With the creation of the UN, as a result of a political compromise between the Soviet Union and the other Great Powers, these two states were admitted to the organisation as independent members and became independent parties to a number of international treaties. Thus, already prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these two states had already possessed a certain, and rather limited, international legal personality which, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has become complete.

The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) regained their independence in August 1991, also prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union(Nug). According to their viewpoints they considered themselves legally identical with the three states annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940: that is to say their international legal personality was 'revitalised' after 51 years. It is unquestionable that the international community of states in the 1940s did not act in concert as far as the acknowledgement of the annexation of these states by the Soviet Union was concerned." (HANNA BOKOR-SZEGŐ. CREATION AND CESSATION OF STATES AND CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW. Társadalom és gazdaság Közép- és Kelet-Európában / Society and Economy in Central and Eastern Europe, Vol. 20, No. 2, The End of a Millennium: The Dynamics of External and Internal Politics in Central and Eastern Europe: Part II (1998), pp. 268-283)

I provided an extended quote to demonstrate I didn't take anything out of context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, where does van Elsuwege describe Dumberry's summary as "a purely legalistic point of view"? Regarding your extended quote, with your first underlined text "the states which were born as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union are new subjects of international law; they are new states" you make the mistake of assuming this includes the Baltic states, however van Elsuwege writes further down (I've underlined it in your quote for clarity) that the Baltic state regained their independence before the dissolution of the USSR, therefore van Elsuwege was referring to the remaining 12 republics that remained after the Baltic states left as being those states that were born as a result of the dissolution. As for your second underlined text, that's irrelevant, since even those states that gave de jure recognition to the Soviet occupation like the Netherlands agreed that the Baltic states were restored states not new states in the 1991 EC declaration. You still haven't addressed Dumberry's summary that indicates that restoration is a settled fact. --Nug (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where did you take it from. Bokor-Szego writes "disintegration", not "dissolution", the former was a long process that started before the USSR had been formally dissolved. Therefore, there is nothing in this quote the makes it inapplicable to the Baltic states. Moreover, she writes: "The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) regained their independence in August 1991, also prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union." It is clear from the context that that "also" refers to the analogy with Ukraine and Belarus, which were admitted to the UNO when they were the parts of the USSR, so this author two cases (Ukraine and Belarus, and the Baltic states), when new entities had some traits of state before their formal secession.

Interestingly, you seem to have ignored the last part, which clearly says that no consensus existed in the international community regarding the annexation of the Baltic states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, you have made great contributions to World War II topics, don't ruin your reputation with these fallacious arguments. Disintegration means separation into component parts and dissolution is a synonym that means the same thing, as any dictionary will show. Note that at the time the Baltic states achieved international recognition for their restored independence in early September, the Soviet Union still existed and there was every expectation that it would continue to exist in some form and it wasn't until three months later on December 8 when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords that the Soviet Union was finally dissolved. So it is clear by the language used Bokor-Szego that "the states which were born as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union are new subjects of international law; they are new states" refers to the 12 newly independent states, and not the Baltic states which he says "regained their independence in August 1991, also prior to the dissolution"; a state cannot both be newly independent and regain independence simultaneously. BTW, you still haven't come to terms with Dumberry's summary that indicates that restoration is a settled fact. --Nug (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Disintegration" means "breaking apart". "Dissolution" has several meanings, but one of them is quite specific: it is "the dissolving of an assembly or organization", i.e., it is an official act. Usually, the authors dealing with the history of the USSR use the term "disintegration" to describe a process that started in 1989 with the "sovereignty parade", and the word "dissolution" is used to describe the official act of signing of the Belavezha Accords. Thus, the gscholar search gives 56 results for "prior to the dissolution of the USSR", and just 7 results for "prior to the disintegration of the USSR". Similarly, you will find more sources that use "disintegration" to describe a process rather than an act. It is not clear from the source quoted by me that that author is an exception, at least she does not say that explicitly here. You probably know that our policy says that "even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". Your thesis is not supported by the source I quoted, but my thesis is: it does not follow from a context that the author refers just to 12 post-Soviet states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously Paul, how can a state be both newly independent yet regain independence at the same time? Your interpretation leads to this contradiction. The Baltic states were newly independent in 1920 and regained independence in 1991. And you still seem to be avoiding the issue of Dumberry's summary which directly and explicitly states "The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R." Are you going to refute Dumberry's direct and explict conclusion, or just simply continue to ignore it? --Nug (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Regarded ... as identical..." by whom and for which purpose? As van Elsiwege says, in this concrete case this thesis is a legal fiction, so the opinion of the author whom you cite is definitely applicable to some cases, and is not applicable to others. For details, see below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Van Elsewege explicitly and directly states the Baltic states restored their independence. Dumberry explicitly and directly states Baltic States are not successor States of the U.S.S.R, and he explicitly and directly states there is no controversy in that view. How can you dispute this? --Nug (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You correctly described the views of these two authors, however, that only a part of the story. The same author (van Elsuwege) says that the restitutio ad integrum concept is a legal fiction when it is applied to the Baltic states. That means that all what you say belongs to the realm of present days international law, not to the history of the USSR. Therefore, the quotes provided by you are pertinent (with reservations) only to the State continuity of the Baltic states article, not to this one, which describes historical realities.

In any event, you failed to demonstrate I took anything out of context, misinterpreted some source, or did any original research, or that I was pushing some nationalistic POV. Therefore, I respectfully request you to strike through the comments where you accused me of these violations. Please, do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly Paul, Van Elsewege writes an entire chapter on the on the period 1985 to 1991 concerning the historical events that occurred in the Soviet Union called "1985-1991: NATIONAL REAWAKENING AND THE RESTORATION OF INDEPENDENCE". Stuff concerning restitutio ad integrum is in a different chapter and is not relevant to this discussion. --Nug (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Breakup, the three versus the twelve

Essays in honour of Wang Tieya
Wang, T. and Ronald St. John MacDonald
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994

Self-Determination of Peoples and the Recent Break-Up of USSR and Yugoslavia
Antonio Cassese
p 134 and following

Primary points to be made regarding restoration of the Baltic states' independence:

1. premised rights to independence on the invalidity of the MR pact; forcible occupation and annexation were international crimes; de jure continuity with pre-1940 Baltic states
2. therefore grounded in international law; did not exercise Soviet constitutional law (Article 72 of the Soviet Constitution granting each Republic an unqualified right to secede)
3. neither did Baltic legislatures assert a right to self-determination; however, referenda provided proof of support

Regarding the remaining 12 republics:

1. they had no right of self-determination or secession in international law, any rights were defined in the Soviet constitution
2. the law on holding referendums which purported to implement Article 72 of the constitution was so cumbersome that it was likely more intended to be an impediment to secession

Cassese passed away in 2011 and is considered one of the most distinguished jurists in international law. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Selective usage of sources again? What about the "Rights vs Reality" chapter? You might also be interested to read the last sentence of the second paragraph of the section #3, as well as the paragraph as whole.

In general, I found all of that curious: according to Nug, van Elsuwege is a fringe source when it is being cited by me, but it is mainstream source when it is being cited by Nug himself. It was explained to Vecrumba, for many times, that his purely legalistic approach is not shared by serious authors (including Cassese himself).

And, finally, I strongly suggest you Nug and Vecrumba to stop your references to some "pro-Russian" viewpoint and to synthesis: not only that is ridiculous, that is highly disruptive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make up stuff Paul, I never said van Elsuwege was a fringe source, so please refactor you comment. Do you have a source that states van Elsuwege approach is "purely legalistic" and not shared "serious authors", or is this just your unsourced opinion? --Nug (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

According to your own words:

"Indeed, Paul appears to have a tendency to interpret sources to fit his POV, which appears to be aligned with the Russian government viewpoint, which in turn sources have shown as being isolated, i.e. a minority viewpoint."

That means my sources are "isolated and minority", and should not be treated seriously. However, since we frequently use the same sources my observation is still valid: the same source is "bad" when it is being used by me, and it is "good" when it is used by you. By the way, regarding other sources I used you failed to provide even a single evidence of your thesis that they "have shown as being isolated, i.e. a minority viewpoint". Therefore, I suggest you to either provide such an evidence, or to apologise for you disrupting activity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the Russian government viewpoint that the Baltic states seceded as being isolated, and mentioned that assertion was supported by the sources, namely: State Continuity And Nationality, Page 92: "It appears that today Russia by holding the opposite opinion on the Baltic claims is isolated on this issue."[4]. Certainly authors like van Elsuwege don't support your POV, you just misinterpret what they write in the same way you demonstratively misinterpreted what I just wrote. --Nug (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You should either explain what the "misinterpretation" consisted in or refrain from the claims that I misinterpreted something. If you will do that again, I'll treat that as a personal attack.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Whenever you're called on your personal interpretations of sources you decry the personal attacks against your person. You never come up with a worthy rebuttal. Here's what I've experienced:

1. Paul says X.
2. Someone else says Y, not X, X misinterprets sources.
3. Paul alleges personal attack. Or, Paul goes away and comes back with the same argument all over again three months later at another article, e.g., pursuing your Baltics part of the USSR display at the recent name of birth place RfC.

Your charges of history rewriting are, sadly, exactly what current official Russian propaganda contends. And we know it's propaganda because it does not even agree with treaties which Russia has signed. Calming tea, feel free to resurrect this again at some future time when you've had a chance to take a deep breath and understand that your din of "personal attack" is what is the disruptive conduct here. I predict eventually we will have had the same debate on every article touching on the Soviet Union and the Baltic states. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't you mind me to refrain from any commentaries on that? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are asking here, I have only summarized our typical scenario over the last year or so which inevitably ends in your alleging personal attacks on my part. I am sure if you ceased such accusations we might instead further discuss the topic at hand. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, provide a concrete example (with diffs), or strike through your 23:57, 9 April 2013, and 04:52, 11 April 2013 posts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Referendum of 1991

This event, although a significant one, begins to drain too much attention of the lead copyeditors. Should it be largely moved out of the lead to a dedicated section? I doubt that a proper explanation of the situation with its boycott in separatist republics is possible in few words. iIncnis Mrs (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead is suppose to be a summary of the article that can standalone, since the article is large then the lead is necessarily large too. So I oppose any futher shortening of it. --Nug (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A plebiscite to end the USSR does rather belong in the lead. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Article’s lead and events of 1939–40

The article’s lead is bloated and needs shrinking, not expaning. I strongly object to inclusion specific references to 1940 acquisition of Baltic states to the piece of lead describing beginning of the WWII. Let us remember which territories were captured in 1939–40:

• Eastern Poland (mostly West Ukraine (without Chernivtsi and Zakarpattia) West Belarus ≈ 12 million people).
• Territories conquered from Finland (mostly Karelian Isthmus ≈ 500,000 people), sparsely populated Eastern Lapland can be neglected.
• Baltic states ≈ 7 million people.
• Territories captured from Romania (Moldavia (right bank of Dniester) Chernivtsi Oblast ≈ 4 million people).

Why the lead should consider preferentially the Baltic question, which involves only about 30% of the total population affected and only 3 of 6 states which suffered losses? Yes, these 3 states were the only whose entire territory was acquired by USSR in 1939–40 and hence, they desired to restore the status quo, but this is already reflected in the phrase about 1991 Baltic secessions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That is right, the Baltic states were sovereign countries and full members of the League of Nations when they were entirely incorporated into by the Soviet Union. The original article gave no real indication as to how the Baltic states became to be part of the Soviet Union, it read like they were members from the beginning. Also given that the Baltics restored their independence in August before the Soviet Union finally dissolved in December. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to accept that the Baltics restored independence rather than secede, given the quoted source above that states this view is not controversial. If you want corroboration, another source Thinking Peaceful Change: Baltic Security Policies And Security Community Building[5] states on page 71:

"Because Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were never legally part of the Soviet Union, they could neither secede nor become Soviet successor states. Furthermore, the restoration of Baltic independence preceded the dissolution of the Soviet Union."

The original article read like all 15 republics left at the same time and in the same way, when in fact that is not the case at all. --Nug (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to mention the Baltic states in the lead. TFD (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you are not right. Many authors, such as BOKOR-SZEGŐ point out that the Baltic states should be treated separately (although that doesn't mean Nug's reasoning is correct).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be treate separately. But the lead is not the place to explore all aspects of the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi, I've re-read your changes and they are okay with one small alteration. I note that you linked History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953)#The start of World War II, which includes the acquisition of the Baltic states, as well as the other territories, so that is okay. The small change I have made reflects the historic fact that the Baltic states called independence on the basis of restoration, not self-determination. --Nug (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Although they started to speak about restoration of sovereignty later, initially it was a secessionist movement, and it was being described by the Western sources as such. I provided a reliable source that confirms that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You are kidding right? So you cherry pick some author writing from a distance (and demonstrably unaware of the discourse actually taking place) about events as they appeared to him occurring in the Soviet Union in preference to a later source that summarises the state of scholarship after due analysis of events: "The only non-controversial point is that the three Baltic States are regarded not as new States (and not as successor States of the U.S.S.R.) but as identical to the three Baltic States that existed before their 1940 illegal annexation by the U.S.S.R." Are you the same Paul Siebert that insisted on the need to use the latest sources in preference to earlier sources with regard to Communist mass killings? --Nug (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nug, take a break and think if to accuse me of cherry-picking was your real intention. If that was just an emotional outburst, please, strike through the whole your comment, and we will forget about this incident. However, if you still insist that I have been engaged in cherry-picking, please, explain why is this source unacceptable, or how concretely did I misinterpret it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Still avoiding Dumberry's summary I see. --Nug (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No. I already addressed that: this author seems to be focused on legal aspects, whereas other sources prefer to focus on political and historical realities. As van Elsuwege says, although the principle of state continuity is not without any effect, "a full and unrestricted restitutio ad integrum can therefore rightfully be described as a legal fiction." If you don't know what "legal fiction" is, look in Encyclopaedia Britannica, which defines "legal fiction" as "a rule assuming something that is clearly false", so I simply do not understand what other arguments are needed.

Moreover, according to this and other authors, the position of the Baltic states is also inhomogeneous: whereas Estonia and Latvia are obsessed with the state continuity thesis (which helps them to resolve the problem with citizenchip of large Russian minority), Lithuania (which has no such a problem, but which inherited from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact a big chunk of Polish territory, including its present-days capital) prefers not to make so big stress on that (for details see van Elsuwege). You said van Elsuwege does not support my POV, but you failed to provide any evidences. In connection to that, are you planning to strike those two your statements?

Moreover, in general, the authors who write about the history of the USSR describe secession of the Baltic states in the same terms as secession of, e.g. Georgia. Only the sources that are focused on the Baltic states themselves, and, concretely, on the state continuity thesis, support the viewpoint you are advocating. However, since this article is primarily about the USSR, the sources used by me are more relevant, so there is no cherry-picking here (from my side).

Now, after my explanations, I expect you to strike through you posts that contain false allegations in POV pushing and cherry picking.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, before attempting to interpret van Elsuwege to fit you POV of secession, you should have first checked his book, as you would have found an entire chapter titled "1985-1991: NATIONAL REAWAKENING AND THE RESTORATION OF INDEPENDENCE". Van Elsuwege only mentions "secession" or "secede" a handful of times in the entire book in context of the Soviet law on secession. Therefore your misuse of Van Elsuwege is demonstrated, he does not support your POV regarding secession at all.

Just because van Elsuwege writes "a full and unrestricted restitutio ad integrum can therefore rightfully be described as a legal fiction" does not mean that a partial and restricted restitutio ad integrum is similarly a legal fiction, nor is there any indication that a partial and restricted restitutio ad integrum invalidates a restoration and makes it a secession, as you imply. But as I want to pin your arguments to the wall and deal with them in a systematic way, so you don't sneak away and re-cycle them to a new audience on some other talk page, as has happened in the past, I what to address Bokor-Szego. Do you now agree that Bokor-Szego cannot have been referring to the Baltic states when writing "the states which were born as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union are new subjects of international law; they are new states" since Bokor-Szego also writes "The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) regained their independence in August 1991, also prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union" because a state cannot be simultaneously become newly independent while regaining independence? Once we settle this I will address your other arguments. --Nug (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, mind your tongue. I claimed that full and unrestricted restitutio ad integrum is a legal fiction (i.e. the assumption of something that is clearly false), so the thesis of state continuity of the Baltic states has limited applicability, and I see no POV-pushing here. Concretely, despite the fact that most western states established diplomatic relations with the Baltic states in 1991 as if they continuously existed from 1918 (in other words, for these purposes the principle of restitutio ad integrum had worked, and I believe you will agree that I am not going to question this fact), that is not a reason to apply this principle universally to all fields. Thus, Lithuania does not insist on the application of this principle to the question about its borders. Similarly a purely legally fictional formula about sui generis restitutio ad integrum is not a reason to re-write history articles, and to question reliable sources that speak about secession of the Baltic states.

Regarding Bokor-Szego, you just repeated your old argument, which is not working: this author clearly writes about "disintegration" of the USSR (i.e. about the process that started in 1989 and ended in late 1991), and not about the act of dissolution of the USSR, and I see no indication why should we interpret this author in a different way.

I think I provided totally exhaustive explanations, so I expect you to strike through all allegations in POV-pushing, and to close this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You may be mistaking exhausting for exhaustive. You admitted openly to your pro-Soviet bias, give it a rest. All your arguments have been repeatedly refuted. Lastly, I regret your acccusations of nationalist history rewriting have POV written all over them. Perhaps a calming cup of tea? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember when I admitted my pro-Soviet bias last time (even if I did that in past, my viewpoint could change, so please, stop that). I also am absolutely sure I never declared my pro-Russian bias (a sine someone tries to accuse me of). I also don't see why did you decide my arguments have been refuted, at least, on this talk page. Lastly, I don't remember when I accused anybody in nationalist history rewriting (maybe I did that in past, but even if I did I stopped to do that). In connection to that, could you please stop to comment on me and focus on the subject of the dispute? If you have nothing to present, could you please stop posting information that is totally irrelevant to the subject of the dispute?

Thank you in advance for you understanding and collaboration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, you claimed van Elsuwege supports your view that the Baltic states seceded, despite the fact that he writes an entire chapter titled "1985-1991: NATIONAL REAWAKENING AND THE RESTORATION OF INDEPENDENCE" and only mentions the term "secession" or "secede" a handful of times in the entire book in context of the Soviet law on secession, you instead rely upon synthesis over restitutio ad integrum. Nowhere does van Elsuwege directly and explicitly make the argument you are presenting. You have not explained how my "old argument" regarding Bokor-Szego is not working, you have yet to explain how a state can simultaneously become newly independent while regaining independence, which is the implication of your interpretation of Bokor-Szego. --Nug (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did I claim that? I remeber I claimed that van Elsuwege described the Baltic states' restitutio ad integrum as a legal fiction, which means all considerations about their state continuity belong to the realm of international law, not to the realm of historical sciene. At least, as I have demonstrated, historians describe the events using quite a different language, and I never claimed they support my views. What I claimed (and what I am claiming now) is that my views are in full accordance with what those sources say. (By the way, don't you see a difference between "An author X supports my claim" and "My claim is based on what the author X says"?)--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, see above, for example on this page.

Conflating aspects of the thing with/for the thing itself is central to your synthesis here and elsewhere. A past example similar to van Elseuwege above has been Malksoo and your contentions of less than an occupation ("more of an intervention") when Malksoo himself wrote the USSR "crushed and occupied" the Baltic states.

Regarding any perceptions of bias, I have only commented regarding your own past direct admission when your conclusions demonstrably favor a pro-Soviet or Soviet-ameliorating perspective which discounts historical facts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't remember if I wrote that during last couple years, and I don't think my editorial behaviour gives you a right to make such a conclusion. In that situation, you have a choice between two alternatives: you can try to provide a diffs where I openly declare my pro-Soviet bias, or you can strike through all your comments about me (not about the article's subject). --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You know what you've said. Don't belabor the point. As for your POV, I have only engaged in empirical observation regarding congruences of position where such positions are demonstrably minority or fringe based on verified historical facts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Back to the question at hand, there are plenty of sources which indicate that 12, not 15, new states succeeded the USSR. That should be reflected in the lead and infobox. There's no controversy here in the international community. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead has been fixed up somewhat but the issue remains with the infobox. As you correctly point out, 12 states seceded from the USSR, after the Baltic states left in August the USSR continued another three months before being dissolved. The Baltic states were incorporated 18 years after the the USSR appeared and dis-incorporated 3 months before the USSR disappeared, so the Baltic states should not me be mentioned in the infobox at all. --Nug (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The USSR was a superpower between 1945 and 1990, i.e. the span of time when it included Baltic SSRs. Obviously, readers primarily want to learn about USSR when it was a significant power, not when it was marginalized or disintegrating. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The USSR was still a superpower in 1991, it still had thousands of nuclear weapons and millions of soldiers. The Soviet Union continued after the Baltic states left in August, there was an expectation the USSR would continue except that three months later the remaining states decided to dissolve the union. So the Baltic states do not belong in the predecessor field they were incorporated 18 years later, they do not the belong in the secessor section either. --Nug (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Nug for the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=550119642&oldid=550112132 edit. Due to the “The Baltic states were incorporated 18 years after the the USSR appeared…” part of the summary of the previous edit (which is irrelevant to the succession problem), and because the diff does not indicate which part of the article was modified, I mistakenly perceived that Nug deleted three states from the list of constituent countries, not successor states. Please, excuse me if this edit caused an insult. I have no interest to participate in a dispute about successor states. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We should keep Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania in the infobox content, even though they regained their independance (summer 1991) before the USSR's demise (Boxing Day, 1991). We don't want to create the impression that the Baltic states were never a part of the USSR. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You'd need to divide this article into 3 articles - Soviet Union (1922–1940), Soviet Union (1940 – Aug 1991) & Soviet Union (Aug–Dec 1991) - to have the Baltics removed as prdecessor & successor states from this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You suggestion does not follow. The Baltic states are not listed as predecessor states in the infobox, so I don't know what you are talking about. The Baltic states left the USSR 3 months before the USSR was dissolved, 3 month, three years or 30 years, what difference does it make? --Nug (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend we leave them in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The simple issue is succeeded by. Current scholarship and, conveniently or inconveniently, all actual successor state agreements all agree on 12, not 15, states succeeding the USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Best to go with 15. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

15 states succeeding the USSR exists only in your imagination. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are the Baltics excluded? Just because they left the USSR 3 months before it all fell apart? It does not make any sense to exclude them from the infobox just based on this tiny technicality.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruption from the IP range 95.195.192.0/19

As I can see, the (unregistered) person who edits Wikipedia from 95.195.192.0–95.195.223.255 does not improve the content, nor contribute to consensus building. An edit history flooded with self-reverts, meaningless edits summaries, and edits with an obvious incendiary purpose distract other users from finding solutions to present problems and obscure changes made by constructive editors. This editing pattern is not specific to the article “Soviet Union”, though, as one can see here. Possible ways to mitigate this disorder can be:

• To request semi-protection to this article, and possibly other articles attacked from the same direction in the similar way;
• To soft-block the problematical range, forcing the person in question to use an account which could facilitate his/her “education”.

Opinions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP belongs to User:Nug, who said as much on my talk page. The merits of his edits aside, there seems to be nothing warranting a sock-puppet investigation; the user was pretty clear about why he's editing as an IP.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2013; 18:07 (UTC)

Please, clarify what do you mean: do you suppose that Nug and the (specific, although unidentified) disruptive IP editor are the same person? It would be a serious misdemeanor which implies disciplinary sanctions, and it requires strong evidences, otherwise it is nothing but a defamation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Editors have a full right to edit as IPs, and in this case the reasons for doing so (which Nug explained on my talk page) sound perfectly legit. One may disagree with his edits, but there's nothing criminal in editing while logged out, especially when one admits to doing so.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2013; 18:46 (UTC)

Please, point to Nug’s diff (not an IP’s diff) from which a reasonable person should conclude that some of 95.195.192.0/19 disruptions (such as in this article, or those like Special:Contributions/95.195.201.216) are his own IP sock edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely you meant "edits", not "disruptions"? And please kindly desist calling the IPs in this range "socks". Just because you disagree with these edits (as do I, by the way) does not mean they are made in bad faith. As far as a diff goes, here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2013; 20:01 (UTC)

So he posted to a thread on your talkpage. Wow. Some convincing case you got there. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What about the original question: semiprotect? Another sockpuppet investigation? Just clean up the article after the chaos and wait for further development? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, recall provisions of WP:Sock puppetry: [6] (given my comment [7] 6 hours ahead of the first 95.195.195.158’s edit) is a clear-cut misdemeanor, assumed both subjects (Nug and 95.195.195.158) are the same person. Indeed, the diff=551922493 comment may cause a reasonable suspicion by the fact that it appeared in the IP-initiated thread, but it is far from “one admits to doing so” (Ezhiki). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All I see is a creeping edit war, with Nug first editing logged in, then logged out. Not the most productive behavior (on both sides), yes; "clear-cut misdemeanor", umm, no. The SPI was rightfully denied, too. The user indicated that he and the IP is the same person and explained the reasons for editing as an IP (if only to me); I clarified this here as well. You can go back to discussing the points of your actual disagreement now; this case is closed. I can see how it all could have been confusing at first, but right now there is no reason to drag this further.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2013; 12:09 (UTC)

Sorry, two excerpts from WP:Sock puppetry:

“ Sock puppetry can take on several different forms:

…

• Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address

…

”

“ Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Creating an illusion of support: Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.

…

• "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for disruptive editing.

…

”

I repeat: logging off before re-doing an obstructed edit is a clear-cut “creation of an illusion of support” and avoiding a damage to “a good hand account”. I hope, the majority of editors here know what says WP:Sock puppetry and know that it is a policy. But fortunately for Nug, the user Ezhiki has not an authority (neither obtained from Nug, nor entrusted by the community) to declare this registered user and a set of IP edits to belong to the same physical person. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Logging off on purpose and then trying to hide a relation between the registered account and the IP and would be a clear-cut violation, yes. However, there is no proof that the user did so on purpose; if anything, his explanation makes perfect sense. Assume good faith already. And I didn't "declare" anything; the user himself did. What your problem is with that is beyond me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2013; 13:41 (UTC)

Again, where is the evidence that 95.195.... and Nug are the same individual? The fact that they both posted to the same thread on your talkpage? Zounds! What an ironclad case!

More telling is that the IP reverted Nug's edit (several times, actually: Nug 95.195 Nug 95.195), calling it a "conspiracy theory". And further, their writing styles are worlds apart. Are you contending that Nug has invented an alter ego with worse English skills for the purpose of edit-warring with himself? You'll need some real evidence for that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but neither of you is making any sense. The IP is explicitly claiming to be Nug, and Nug is posting to the same thread as the IP. It seems to me that if I were to post to a thread in which some IP is claiming to be me, I'd certainly start raising a helluva fuss if I knew the IP was not me! So would most other sane editors. What is it you were hoping to achieve with an SPI?

The bottom line: I see no problem with socking or bad faith editing here, only a disagreement over content and a whole lot of weirdness. If this assessment is not good enough for you, you are welcome to seek assistance of another admin. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2013; 17:00 (UTC)

What is there to not understand about edit-warring??? I believe your confusion is centred around the phrase "user:nug by the way". It seems you have misinterpreted this as "by the way, I am Nug". But if you read it in context, he is complaining about a user "acting against consensus". The logical reading, then, is "by the way, the user that I am talking about is Nug".

The IP is unambiguously not claiming to be Nug. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is nothing logical about this whole thing. I don't think I misinterpreted anything; I'm merely choosing to interpret the fact that Nug commented in the same thread where an IP is explicitly claiming to be him (regardless of the context) as an indication that he has no problem with the IP's statement (which itself makes it reasonable to assume they are the same person). And it seems to me that if you don't find the thread on my talk page to be satisfactory proof, the easiest way to resolve this is by asking Nug directly whether he and the IP are the same. At any rate, instead of trying to catch your opponent on technical or behavioral grounds, this discussion would be better served if you all returned to discussing the actual content matter. What are you more interested in: resolving this dispute or "apprehending a criminal"? If it's the latter, please find another admin to work with. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2013; 17:59 (UTC)

WTF. You certainly did mis-interpret the discussion on your talk page big time Ezhiki. You could have asked me first rather than claiming the IP and I were the same. The IP is from Sweden, I'm from Australia. I had the page semi-protected due to this ongoing IP disruption, now someone else is restoring non-factual content[8] and the page has now been fully protected. --Nug (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my understanding of Russian history includes the Baltic SSRs as members of the USSR and existing again as independent nations following the fall of the Soviet Union. You may be able to provide plenty of sources that state that the Baltics seceded prior to the dissolution, but why exclude information from the article just because of that technicality created by a three month window? This extremely strict reading of yours is hurting the article more than any IP edit warring.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was an encyclopaedia and factual accuracy was paramount? No source claims the Baltic states seceded, but all the sources agree that their independence was restored three months prior to the dissolution of the USSR. They restored their independence not "following the fall of the Soviet Union" but prior to it. There was every expectation that the USSR would continue on in some form when the Baltic states left, except that three months later the remaining 12 republics decided to dissolve the union. If the Baltic states left three months or three year prior to the dissolution, where do you draw the line? Contending otherwise is just OR, because no source exists to back what you are saying. --Nug (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

Another opinion

Maybe I am confused, but it appears to me that some of the comments on this talk page are confused. The statement has been made that User:Nug and the Swedish anons are the same person. I can't find that statement, and Nug denies it.

I see that the article page has been put under full page protection. I am aware that my opinion on full page protection is a minority opinion, but I continue to think that full page protection is NEVER or at least ALMOST NEVER appropriate. When there is persistent edit warring, it seems to me that it is "less undesirable" to warn the edit warriors of the WP:3RR rule and then let them get blocked than to put a page under full protection. I have seen POV-pushers corruptly request full page protection to keep their tendentious edits preserved. I have seen admins abuse full page protection to keep their points of view. In this particular case, I don't see a case for full page protection, and I certainly don't see a case for indefinite full page protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I must disagree, a little bit, but well, I applied the full protection, and it is only for 3 days to boot. I for one prefer full protection to edit warring warnings and subsequent blocks for the edit warring parties, as it might just turn them, in case of prolific and experienced users, hostile. And it would mar a perhaps, until this moment, clean blocklog. Emotions can run high on contentious articles, but the talk-page provides a means to work that off, imho. Lectonar (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree about the page protection. The claim that Nug and the Swedish anons are the same or sockpuppets, on the other hand, is patent nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)